Tarlochan Singh and Others vs Narinder Singh and Others

Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J.

This order shall dispose of CR Nos. 8727 & 8751 of 2014, involving common questions of law and facts. However, to dictate orders, facts have been taken from CR No. 8727 of 2014 titled Tarlochan Singh v. Narinder Singh and others. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 26.11.2014 (Annexure P5) whereby the application for transfer of the case from the Court of the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Batala to some other Court of competent jurisdiction, has been dismissed.

The application, under Section 24 C.P.C., was filed on the ground that the attitude of the Presiding Officer was hostile and prejudiced and earlier Civil Suit had been decided on 28.03.2014 and there was a delay in supplying the certified copies of the judgments and decrees. A complaint had been filed before this Court, on the administrative side, which is still pending. It was further averred that the opposite side was asserting that the orders would be passed in their favour and therefore, the applicants prayed for withdrawal from the Court of Smt. Amita Singh, Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Batala.

The District Judge has noticed that there is no complaint against the integrity and competence of the Presiding Officer and the application appears to have been filed just to delay the proceedings in the case since the applicants were in possession of the suit property. It was further noticed that the cases are more than 15 years old. Accordingly, for the reasons given, the application has been dismissed.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if the matter is transferred to some other Court, the grievances of the petitioner will be redressed and further submits that compliant had been made to this Court regarding the earlier litigation.

After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that there is no justification to allow these applications. Admittedly, there was inter se litigation between the same set of parties which had been already decided on 28.03.2014. The said judgments are, now, subject matter of appeal before the Lower Appellate Court. Merely because the earlier litigation has been decided against the petitioner, the bias in his mind is arising against the Presiding Officer. The judicial Officer is only discharging her functions. Merely because a decision has come against the petitioner, is not a ground that the said Officer shall decide again against the petitioner.

Counsel for the petitioner has tried to take this Court to the merits of the litigation which has been decided. However, this Court is not persuaded to go into that issue, which is a subject matter of the Lower Appellate Court and not for this Court to decide. Rather, since the Court had adjudged the litigation inter se the parties, it would be in a better position to decide the matter. Admittedly, the issue has been long pending and the suit pertains to a mortgage deed dated 25.05.1986 and as noticed by the District Judge, litigation was more than 15 years old. Merely because an effort has been made by the Officer to dispose of the matter within a time-bound frame, is not a ground for transfer. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present revision petitions, the same are hereby dismissed.